Re: [langsec-discuss] The "grammar" approach...

Derick Winkworth writes: > In this case, they went through the process of defining a grammar for an > existing protocol. This process might actually have another application in > the realm of machine learning and language processing. Interesting, could you elaborate? I

[langsec-discuss] [Erik Poll] Re: state machines vs regular expressions

standard. I think LOTOS effectively died, but maybe there are some lessons we can still draw from these efforts... Cheers, Erik On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Sven M. Hallberg wrote: > Hi Erik, > > thanks for the good discussion points! I'll reply in-line below... > BTW, do you mind if

Re: [langsec-discuss] TJSON: Tagged JSON with Rich Types

Tony Arcieri on Fri, Nov 04 2016: > To parse and typecheck TJSON in one pass, it would involve obtaining the > parse tree for the LHS of parsing a particular nonterminal and pass it to > the pushdown automaton parsing the RHS as a sort of parametric argument > along with the

Re: [langsec-discuss] TJSON: Tagged JSON with Rich Types

Tony Arcieri on Wed, Nov 02 2016: > {"foo:s": "bar"} Suddenly your grammar for the value depends on a piece of information inside the key... > This means the only type allowed for member names is a string (which seems > fine to me). This one I would actually suggest for

Re: [langsec-discuss] TJSON: Tagged JSON with Rich Types

On Oct 25, 2016, at 5:15 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > https://www.tjson.org/ Neat! You describe the generic form of ":..." in BNF, but you can also describe all your higher-level requirements in the grammar. Are there plans to produce a fully grammatical specification? You

[langsec-discuss] two parsing questions

Hi List, I've been revisiting the work I did with the DNP3 parser, aiming to produce a proper context-free grammar for the application layer messages. Two questions have popped up and I would appreciate pointers to any previous work in these areas. 1. Parsing binary (i.e. bitwise) structures